Grumpy Bear

Now this is a funny thread. Drive it like ya stole it. Let it idle six hours a day but whine when the price goes up or the blend suffers efficiency. What should rational make of this I think?

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.” – Aristotle Saw this in a café along the roads I drive and it caused me to think about how I pursue fuel efficiency. I don’t really hypermile. I don’t have the patients for it and some of it in my opinion is plain dangerous. But I do note to do it effectively is has to be your habit. We all drive by habit; what we repeatedly do. Our habits can be charted and I’ve shared some of those in my build thread. When I saw this quote it made me ask myself, “What IS my habit?” I’d have to say an attempt to limit variables to hone my methods. Is that really excellence? The quality of being outstanding or extremely good. My results are pretty good but I don’t know about being outstanding. I mean anyone with the inclination to repeat the result could. Perhaps even exceed my result. So…no…not outstanding just maybe unusual but I’ve eaten pie that was unusual that I wouldn’t call outstanding. Guess I’m saying that to be excellent then I need a new habit. My current repetitions have taken me about as far as they can. Hang on to that thought. I met the fella who owns this really successful farm near us who had an interesting take on farming that I think applies. He said, “Three things I can’t control. Weather, time or the markets, EVERYTHING else is fair game”. How true I thought. A variable indeed and one I have no control over is the weather. More to the point, wind. Living in Norther Illinois wind is a fact of life and trucks hate wind. I meant they HATE wind. That said I’ve now gone full circle. I need a new habit and that habit has to eliminate a variable I have no control over, wind. Or do I? I’ve started experimenting with a set of ideas. 1.) Target a mileage. Nuts right? I mean you have to actually reach your destination, right? Cause your thinking that to do this you have to drive 40 mph everywhere you go. Not actually. In fact not often or at all. Some limits. Boundaries. 2.) Never exceed the speed limit. 3.) 45 mph minimum. Those two alone will bound a possible number you can target. I add another. 4.) My personal maximum limit is 60 mph. That by itself will raise the floor of your possible number. The average speed we drive as a whole (not individually) measured by total miles divided by engine hours falls in the mid 30 mph range. 33 mph is a number used by Ford Fleet. My experience is a bit higher at 38 mph for all vehicles I have owned in the last thirty years. And here’s a personal fact. I’m likely the slowest driver I know that isn’t geriatric. So how do I manage an above average-average speed? Saddle time and a steady pace. Which leads me to my next point. 5.) Obtain the highest speed measured miles/hours without violating the first three points. Since post #159 I’ve made some minor modifications to my target and my fuel cell size. 70 Liters is 18.5 gallons and 75% of 25 gallons which is where the pump cuts off consistently. That done I now need a slightly higher MPL to get 500 miles solid from this volume of fuel. 7.14 MPL the math says but the resolution of the meter begs 7.2 MPL. (27.25 mpg). So…how is that working out? Well my average speed is rising, now over 39 mph and the rest is in the graph. You’re looking for the broken yellow line. Ponder this a minute. My average speed is higher than those who drive with abandon and whose record nationally is 17 mpg or 4.5 MPL. So how slow can I be?

Reporting: Bridgestone Dueler HT D684 II 255/70R17 110S that are factory fit for Pepper. 23,000 miles. Tire tread depth measured .265 inches. New is .3125 and will end at .094 plus a .033 early allowance for the outer treads shallower measurement or at .127. This gives a projected tread life of 90,000 miles. Bridgestone’s warranty is 60,000 miles or five years on this tire. My bad. I should have had the alignment checked in the first week I owned her or I would have gotten 105,000 out of this set. Yesterday I had the misfortune of being forced to drive in a downpour. One of those that a wise man would pull over for. Thing is, with good blades and Rain-X on the windshield my vision was actually really good and these tires cut a path down to the blacktop as could be seen in the rearview. Traffic had me speed limited to 50 mph on a state primary. Plenty fast enough. They are extremely quiet and handle, bite and braking as good as any tire needs to that isn’t track driven. If they were fitted to my Buick I would knock the comfort mildly but they aren’t on a sponge sprung Buick. They are on a half-ton truck. No whiners. Can’t tell you a thing about snow and ice. Don’t drive on it with this truck but the experienced mature drivers mentioned in the paragraph below who drive in the Rockies and Canada are not complaining about a lack of winter bite. I won’t argue with them. This shocked me a bit. Write ups are not kind to this tire. Downright mean in fact. They go on for pages on the Tire Rack site but if you pick through the garbage you will also find those mature experienced drivers that are literally raving this tire in situations I will/would never put Pepper in. The haters are generally those not getting 20,000 out of set. Go figure. I’m stupid and it’s the tires fault. Whatever. One fella summed it up pretty good. “These tires are butt ugly and yet I can find no fault in them that would have me run anything else. I will by a second set”. (paraphrased) I’ve been looking for a reason to 8T6 these tires in favor of a lighter weight lower rolling resistance type. Even had them picked out. Good enough. Guess I can buy some rims and loose the weight there.

The stigma of driving a gas 6 cylinder in a 'man' truck is enough to put many off. What a girly-boy motor. (Said in my best Arnold)

With the running average now back to the cumulative average and the six point moving average riding the upper control limit it is time to increase the trolling speed a bit. My aim is a 500 mile range with the recommended 25% tank reserve for pump cooling and while accommodating a 26 gallon tank that isn't actually fillable to 26 gallons plus the fact we have a quarter gallon fill variance and another tenth in Scan Gauge vs Pump resolution. We need some cushion so I settled on 25 gallons as a realistic actual tank size leaving 18.75 gallons of useful average volume. As the Scan Gauge isn't able to accept anything smaller than a gallon I have decided to convert to liters and a target of 71 liters or 18.76 gallons. This means to get my 500 mile range I need to average 26.65 mpg or 7.04 miles per liter of fuel or 8.83 liters per hundred kilometers. As I drive in the US and the speeds are in MPH the report will now be in miles per liter. 7 is close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades for me. ​Basic? The task now becomes, how fast can I drive and AVERAGE 7 miles per liter (26.5 mpg) A hair above the six point moving average. ​ ​It's 1007 miles from my town to my daughters city. Denver. One fuel stop is my target.

Sure you can. Just can't tell anyone why>

Now that's the kind of usage I would expect to produce 17 mpg. Thanks for your honesty. BTW Dad might be right.

13,929 miles, 591.932 gallons of gas. 25.7 mpg. Truck has 22,500 mile on it. RCSB 4.3 Ecotec3 3.23 open diff stock tires. Very little city driving. Not much Interstate either. Primary and secondary northern Illinois, eastern Iowa and southern Wisconsin roads. I don't drive it like a race truck and I don't drive it like 90 year old Aunt Tilly either. I just drive it and drive it I do. Those 22K plus miles since I bought it last summer. During those miles I've keep book and track of everything and every situation. Any idea how hard I have to drive this thing to get 17 mpg? About 75 mpg into a 30 mph headwind on a 3% grade will do it. Trouble is I can't find a path to school that's five miles in the snow uphill both ways to walk. So I'm suck getting this really awful mileage is a truck that's an absolute joy to drive.

I pared this test back to three tanks each. Why? Time & $$$$. Before alignment 1475 miles on 55.84 gallons of fuel 26.41 mpg After alignment 1589 miles on 56.89 gallons of fuel 27.93 mpg 1.52 mpg increase for a 6% gain. That’s 28 miles more range per tank and gets me over my 500 mile wish list target. Current total average for life of truck 25.7 mpg and climbing. Post alignment number is 9% above life time average. ​Next goal is to keep it there at a higher speed. Rabbits out of a hat.

Your numbers are actually the National average according to Fulley.com. It is disappointing, yes, that this is far from the EPA sticker number of 24 mpg but the average non the less. I believe Car and Driver got 16 during their instrument test. Like Donstar pointed out in post #78 getting better mileage is a matter of wanting to do the things that produce better mileage. He's also spot on in his comment about comparing your results to an unknown Internet crowd. I drive allot and I observe a good deal more. The things I see people do to their trucks that work counter to efficiency. I put this in mind when I read other numbers. Even when I read published records.

Well based on the photo's on page one the wife green lighted the project for my truck so...THANKS!

Marv if I read right you currently have a 3.25" back half drop, right? Did we adjust the pinion angle? If not, any vibration issues? Thanks. I really love this current stance.

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php You will find the performance specs for the 1976 Corvette C-03 with the L48 350 and the Turbohydromatic 350 3 speed. A car I owned. 0-60 mph 9.7 seconds Quarter mile 17.2 ET at 81 MPH Weight 3591 lbs. Curb Power to weight 20 lbs./hp. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-silverado-v-6-instrumented-test-review 2014 Silverado CCSB 4.3 Car and Driver instrument test. Rolling 5-60 8.1 seconds Quarter mile 16.0 ET at 87 MPH Weight 5477 lbs. Curb Power to weight 19.2 lbs/hp Even the larger heavier crew cab standard bed is quicker than a middle 70’s Corvette. The RCSB weighs only 4521 lbs. Curb, The truck I now own. Power to weight 15.9 lbs./hp. Just based on weight Wallace Racing Calculators places this a full second quicker than the crew cab 4.3. That’s a 15 flat sea level quarter on 87 pump gas and the stock 3.23 gear. Fact is that is darn near as quick as my 87 5.0 HO LX. It would be a drivers race. ​Anyone wish to argue that either the Corvette or the HO Mustang was too underpowered to clear a freeway ramp safely? ​CCSB 4x4 5.3 has about the same power to weight as the RCSB 4.3. Fractions of a pound per horse which BTW goes in the mini motors favor once E85 hits the tank. Again a drivers race. The question isn't if the 4.3 is better or worse than a 5.3. Better for what? The question is how much weight am I going to ask it to accelerate.

For $12 a tank it will turn 87 into 89 for 48 cents a gallon making local $2.20 gas $2.68 a gallon which is between the price of the 89 and 93 grades. Adding two bottles to get 92 octane for $3.16 a gallon while I can buy 93 a the pump for $2.78. This is a non-starter. That said I tried it anyway as the money has been burned. The goal was fuel efficiency by dialing in more timing by limiting the knock sensor retard. Over the 400 mile test loop the result was....zip...nada...ziltch...nothing. (Post #35) Edited for clarity. ​

I consider the suspension of the truck everything between my backside and the pavement and it has a job more encompassing than making it around a corner. Being a long time tour bike guy I’ve tried the gambit of devices. Bottom line is…if you sit in the saddle long enough your tailbone is going to hurt and your legs are going to go flat. There is no Nirvana. But Wonder Gel Original is as close as anything I’ve tried in 45 plus years of trying. This pad, added to the caster adjustment and running two psig less air in the tires and I have a experience light years more comfortable. On my three hundred mile test drive yesterday I was impressed with how much longer it took to feel the tailbone ache and how quickly it left on the short breaks I took. My legs never went dead and my sciatic never bit me. That boys and girls never happens. (cover off for photo) On another note that three hundred completed the second tank of 500 miles of the six tank set I’m logging and again it registered over 28 mpg.

GM’s Active Fuel Management. Dropping some cylinders to reduce fuel usage. That’s the simplified version. Okay that’s what it is, now what triggers it. Demand triggers it. Load pure and simple. An algorithm reads the computers inputs and from an and/or table and a load calculation decides when to active and when to deactive the system. Range widened the window in favor of on over off. That’s one way to do it. OR Actually reduce the demand to the point the system favors being on. Baby-baby getting the alignment squared went miles towards that. It is now eager to engage. GM says the AFM increases fuel efficiency 5-7%. Without any more data than a tank plus under my belt I’m going to say in this case, that is conservative, as I would expect GM to be. If I didn’t have the Scan Gauge to let me know is was toggling I wouldn’t know it was there. It is starting to become clear to me why the national average mpg for this truck is so far below the governmental estimates. Trucks are like Harleys. It’s rare to find a stock one. We express ourselves in them and create our art. But most of what is mainstream in modification adds considerable load and consumes a corresponding increase in fuel. How often do we ask how a modification will effect mileage? How many actually care? Well, there ya go. Okay on another note. I’m at Casey’s grabbing a cuppa and this fella comes in who just stepped out of a new Nissan Titan so I ask him how he like it? Hates it he says then adds, and get this…. “Thing darn near killed me the other day. I was in a hurry to get home from work and it was driving rain and it hydroplaned at 80 mph on I-80 west. Nearly put me in the ditch”. I smiled and out loud said, “That would be scary” but in my head I said, “And that’s the trucks fault?”

Absolutely. Different driver. Different track. Different day and the list continues. It's just these sorts of real world things that convince us of our opinions. Thing is, the laws of nature are not opinions. Good thing too. If gravity, for instance, had a different value or worked independently of law this world would be a real funny place.

No no, not upset at all. I write large because I see poorly. LOL. I write and think as I do. Length is the result. If I ever did get upset it wouldn't be in front of a crowd. I do that one on one. No worries.

Power to weight ratio has the single largest influence on performance. Goes back to Mr. Newton’s second law of motion. Force = Mass X Acceleration. Power is Force and Mass is weight. Acceleration is the result. So yes it is the proper tool and yes, in and of itself it is absolutely error free. The catch is always the “in and off itself”. The rule of law is constant but humans muck it up all the time. True story. I built a 400 hp 4200 lb car that I raced about thirty years ago and I took allot of money from guys with 500 hp 3500 lb cars. Mr. Newton gave them every advantage based on power to weight. But these people mucked it up. Could not drive and could not keep it hooked up. Too much gear. Too heavy on the flywheel. Too little tire. No suspension work. As Ron White says…”ya can’t fix stupid”. Thank you very much for the hundy. There is also the abstract and subjective ‘feel’ thing. I owned and 64 Malibu SS that would not clear its own shadow. But it sounded powerful and thus felt powerful. 283 one barrel Carter with a Powerglide and a 2.73 open 10 bolt diff. Stone puke. 165 hp I think. But it also had some sweet Headman headers and matching Cherry bomb glass packs than made her sound like she was doing a hundred at twenty five. It was purdy and the girls like it so…. Lastly there is the point of reference thing. If you’ve been driving a 1958 36 HP VW Beetle for a decade even a bicycle feels pretty spunky. Point is….there is objective and subjective. What it is and what it feels like. If it feels perky to ya. Great. Subjective analysis, check. If the argument is about the objective physics? Argue that one with Mr. Isaac Newton. I don’t that sort of thing anymore. Retired. ​ BTW, add 840 lbs. to a setup and it is indeed a slug in comparison. I stand by it. Thank you Isaac.

Add all tanks divided by all miles and that is the ‘cumulative average’. The central tendency. Or just average. Yellow line. The upper and lower control limits are one standard deviation of all the points that make up the cumulative average. One unit plus and one unit minus. Also called one Sigma. Add each tank as it is logged to the average of the previous total and that is the ‘running average’. That is point #1 is the first tank. Point #2 is the average of the first two tanks. Point #3 is the average of the first three tanks and so on. Orange line. Six point moving average is the average of the last six successive tanks. Thus its first plot point is point #6. Blue line. Each is a tool with its own use. The cumulative for instance is the stick in the ground. Your primary point of reference. Over the course of a year it will include all weather, traffic and driving patterns. The running average is the swing in those three pattern makers and in more general terms tells you in a longer view about the health of the system. You can see things like the point of being fully broken in for example. The six point. That’s the thermometer. I make X change and get Y result. Six points is long enough to judge the change and filter out the noise. This last tank is the first tank since the alignment change. The previous six point average was 25.93 mpg. A bit above the cumulative 25.56 mpg. The result of some warmer weather no doubt. The first point of the next six point is 28.45 mpg. A pretty big shift already but only the first of six. I did a 360 mile trip today on a partially used tank but using the ‘current reset’ feature and tracked the to and from separately. 30.6 to and 29.2 return. The surprise is the ease with which it comes now. When the motor isn’t dragging the tires sideways the width of the highway each mile the motor stays in the four cylinder mode allot more. The truck glides further. Gains more speed going downhill so it goes up the next further before the cruise control catches it. (M6 defeats the grade logic on less brutal hills). It will take a while to burn down five more tanks so let’s not get ahead of myself.

Isn't my idea. Goes back about as long as power plants have been moving machines. Oh, and Brian, that LT1 isn't the motor in the current K2's. Just say'n.

RCSB 4.3 RWD weighs about 4,521 lbs. 285 hp. = 15.8 lbs. per horsepower. The 5.3 in the 2LZ 4WD Crew Cab Long Box at 5433 lbs. and you get a power to weight of 15.3 lbs. per horsepower. Almost identical to the RCSB 4.3 RWD. In fact their power to weigh is much closer with full tanks as the CCLB carries another 10 gallons of fuel. 2LT 4.3L 4WD Crew Cab Long Box tips in around 5360 lbs. 285 hp. = 18.8 lbs. per horsepower. Adding 840 pounds to any ride will make it a slug. We never ask the right questions when the things are debated. Why is that?

Get a before and after printout. Look at the last few post in my build thread to see what the Hunter reports looks like. Grumpy Bears 2015 Silverado 2WD Start getting a feel for what changes do what and how it feels driving. I'm very happy with mine.

The caster spec for these trucks is so wide as to be useless to anyone but the inspector that okays that final result. It has a high limit of 3.3 right and 3.5 left. Mine was factory okayed at numbers higher that his. There is no need for anything past 2.5 for anything that isn't a LSR salt car or a motorcycle. I've also never seen a open (negative) toe allowance in a specification for a rear wheel drive in my life. Lastly the spec allows for camber in excess of a half degree in either direction. More than a half is asking for trouble with tire wear. Give a truck the right combination within the spec and "in spec" is still FUBAR. You have to insist on what you want as a setup. They get paid either way and don't have to buy your tires or suspension parts so unless pressed or you find a guy who takes some pride in his work....ya get what ya get.